Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
EPR – UPDATED OECD GUIDANCE
Cecilia Mattsson, Swedish EPA/chair of OECD Working Party on Resource Productivity and Waste (WPRPW)
7th Regional 3R Forum in Asia and the Pacific, 3 November 2016, Adelaide, Australia
• OECD EPR project
• Definition, trends and achievements
• Guidance
– Governance
– Competition
– Design for Environment (DfE)
– Informal sector
Outline
OECD EPR Project
Objectives:
• Assist governments that are considering introducing new or revisiting existing EPRs
• Update 2001 OECD guidance Manual on EPR
• Build on parallel EU Commission work on EPRs
OECD project on EPR
• Review of economic literature on EPRs
• In-depth case studies of around 40 EPR schemes covering 5 product groups
• Policy guidance with a focus on:• Governance
• Competition
• Design for Environment
• The informal sector
• Policy dialogues in emerging market economies
The work benefits from financial support from the EU and a number of other OECD member countries
Description of work
14 country case studies completed
Definition and trends
OECD definition:
EPR is an environmental policy approach in which producer’s responsibility… is extended to the post-consumer stage of a product’s life cycle
EPR systems
Extended Producer Responsibility is
Expanding
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
Nu
mb
er
of
po
lic
ies
ad
op
ted
Year
Cumulative EPR adoption
Cumulative EPR adoption
Extended Producer Responsibility by
product type and instrument
Packaging17%
Electronics35%
Vehicles/auto batteries
12%
Tires18%
Other18%
EPR by product type
Take-back70%
Deposit/Refund
11%
ADF17%
Other2%
EPR by policy
Achievements
• Reduced disposal and increased recycling
• Reduced burden on public budgets
• Economic opportunities
• Limited impact on DfE
Key messages on achievements of
EPRs
Trends in MSW management
But significant differences in
performance
Performance of EPRs in the EU
Collection (C) or recycling and
recovery rates (R)
Average producer fees
Batteries 5-72% (C) 240-5400 EUR/t
ELV 64-96% (R) 0-66 EUR/Vehicle
Oil 3-61% (C) 42-231 EUR/t
Packaging 29-84% (R)20-200 EUR/t
(average 92)
WEEE1.2-17.2 kg/cap (C)
(average 6.6) 68-132 EUR/t
Source: European Commission, 2014
Reduction in food packaging in the EU
(2000-2010)
-20% -18% -16% -14% -12% -10% -8% -6% -4% -2% 0%
PET bottle of 1,5 L still water
Aluminium can of 330 ml for soft drinks
Glass bottle of 250 ml for olive oil
Tin can of 125 gr for fish
Plastic bag for 1 kg of pasta
Cardboard box for dry food
% change
Source: PRO Europe
Guidance
• 3 models with advantages and disadvantages
EPR governance
Multiple PRO
Single PROGovernmentrun
• All models require strong governmentinvolvement:– To enforce a level playing field
– To enforce environmental standards and targets
• EPR can not be run by the private sectoron its own
• Transparency is paramount for effective government oversight
EPR Governance
Product Markets
PROMarkets
Collection Markets
Sorting Markets20
TreatmentMarkets
Key markets with competition concerns
Largest market
5-10% of EPR costs
50-80% of EPR costs 10-40% of EPR costs
EPR and competition
• Competition impact assessments should beintegrated into design of EPR
• PRO established as single operator only if net benefits can be demonstrated
• Services that PROs procure should be procured by transparent, non-discriminatory and competitive tenders – Relevant factors include contract duration,
recovery of sunk costs, and principle of non-exclusivity
EPR and DfE
• So far little impact on DfE due to use of CPR rather than IPR
• Variable fee CPRs preferable to fixed-fee CPRs
• Modulation of fees according to design is an option, but administrative costs need to be assessed
• Full cost recovery important to maximise incentive effect
EPRs and the informal sector
• Emerging economies have a large informal sector that has a potentially important role in EPRs.
• Need to distinguish between types and impacts of informal sector:
• Failure to include the informal sector into EPR can undermine them
• Need to register waste pickers and work towards formalisation and professionalisation
• Informal sector should be actively engaged in discussion for establishment of EPRs
Positive impacts Negative impacts
In collection and sorting, the informal sector can provide positive economic and environmental impacts Unsound practices need to be
eliminated (e.g. informal processing)Some evidence that informal systems collect more material than formal
THANK [email protected]
For further information, please contact Peter Börkey, [email protected] or go to
www.oecd.org/environment/waste
